High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Roop Narain Prasad v. State Of Up Thru' Principal Sec., Finance And Others - WRIT - A No. 44297 of 2004  RD-AH 1202 (25 October 2004)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 44297 OF 2004
Roop Narain Prasad .......... Petitioner
The State of U.P. & Anr. ............ Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.05.2004 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for promotion.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been working in the Finance and Accounts Department of the State of U.P. He reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2003. He filed representation claiming promotion on the ground that 41 persons junior to him had been promoted in higher pay scale of Rs. 16,400-20,000 without considering the claim of the petitioner, on 29.09.2000. Petitioner's grievance had been that he had also been superseded earlier when persons junior to him had been promoted on 14.07.1999. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had been superseded several times on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had been pending against him and the same had been initiated with mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner from claiming benefit of the promotion. Not a single person has been impleaded by name nor any specific allegations against any official have been made in the petition on the basis of which petitioner can be permitted to advance the arguments on this issue.
It is settled legal proposition that the allegations of mala fide must be specific and person against whom allegations are made must be impleaded as respondents. (Vide Dr. J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & anr., AIR 1996 SC 326; State of Bihar & anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. & anr, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India & ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228; All India State Bank Officers Federation & ors Vs. Union of India & ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550; and Federation of Railway Officers Association & ors Vs. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1764). Thus, we are not inclined to consider this issue at all.
The petitioner has not mentioned anywhere in the writ petition as how many promotional posts were available and why did he not challenge the promotion order of persons junior to him which had been made in 1998-99. Petitioner cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own mistake and this plea cannot be agitated at such a belated stage. Even four years prior to the retirement of the petitioner, 41 officers junior to the petitioner had been promoted and his case was considered under sealed cover procedure and after his exoneration in the departmental proceedings, the envelope was opened and he was not found suitable for promotion. Thus, we see no ground to interfere on that count also.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the promotion could not be denied as it had to be made on the basis of seniority alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to produce any Rules governing the promotion of the petitioner and other persons. Therefore, the issue cannot be examined in absence of the statutory provisions nor there has been any specific pleading that the promotion was to be made only on the basis of seniority alone. As the petitioner failed to produce/adduce proper pleadings and documents to substantiate his claim, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the issue.(Vide Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181; M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298).
More so, it has not been stated anywhere in the petition as to on what date persons junior to him had been promoted, whether any post on promotional avenue remained vacant. Courts cannot pass orders to promote two persons on a single post. The last promoted person could have been impleaded as party and that too immediately after the promotion was made.
In view of the above, we see no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.05.2004. Petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.